US Senate Republican candidate Sean Parnell testified Tuesday that sealing the files in his ongoing custody process, closing the custody case to the public, and gagging the parties involved are necessary to protect his three children.
“It’s for my children, and it’s meant to protect my children from things they should never be exposed to,” Parnell said. “I signed up to run for office. My kids didn’t. “
However, under cross-examination, Parnell admitted that in October 2019 he filed a petition with the court for permission to use pictures of his children on social media to “leverage his customer base, promote his political brand, and support his budding political career to win”. .
On Tuesday, the attorney representing Parnell’s estranged wife, Laurie Snell, accused him of trying to have both and asked if he had then made an application to have the file sealed.
“No, but nobody attacked my family at the time either,” Parnell replied.
The testimony came Tuesday during a hearing before Senior Common Pleas Judge James Arner, who presides over the Butler County custody case. He said he would deliberate the matter.
Parnell filed a motion for the minutes to be sealed and closed to the public last month after media reports covered Parnell and Snell’s anti-abuse filings in 2017 and 2018.
Arner has scheduled the hearing so that both sides can provide evidence as to whether the children have been or could be harmed by the disclosure of information about the custody case by the parties or someone acting on their behalf.
In his motion, Parnell admitted that Snell did not speak to the media, but her lawyer, Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale, did.
“(Parnell) is extremely concerned that (Snell’s) attorney is speaking directly to the media about the children and the parties ‘custody proceedings, especially as she went so far as to announce to the press the date of the parties’ upcoming custody proceedings,” Parnell’s movement said . “(Parnell’s) goal was to protect the children from the details of the parties’ litigation.”
Parnell said that if information about the custody issue were leaked to the public, their children could be negatively affected.
In a response, Snell objected to the closure of the case or the sealing of the court record.
On Tuesday, she testified that she believes the only information that should be banned is her children’s medical records, mental health records, and any related psychological reports.
“I think everything should be open,” said Snell.
“So you’re okay with nosy people, some of whom are at this Zoom conference investigating custody files related to your children’s personal information?” asked Kristen Eberle, who is representing Parnell.
“I allow people to review court documents,” Snell replied. “All I care about is protecting my children.”
She told Arner that she spoke out against additional restrictions on the trial or court record.
When Eberle urged Snell to ask if she thought their children’s schedule and activities should be made available, Snell replied, “It’s public because Mr. Parnell posts it almost constantly on his social media.
“I’ve been dealing with this for three years,” she continued. “I don’t like seeing my kids on social media, especially when (Parnell) has over 120,000 followers who are mostly not family and friends.”
Just last weekend, Parnell said he posted a picture of him with his two sons on Facebook.
“It is important. Our children are a pillar of our lives. It is very important to us to protect our children’s images if we want to appear in public life,” he said. “It is important for parents to represent a loving family and to show, otherwise the media will present something that is not correct. “
“Do you want to control what is being done?” Vanasdale asked.
“I think the two of us shouldn’t be talking about private custody matters in the future,” Parnell replied. “I don’t want either of us to talk.”
Regarding the media coverage of the couple’s PFA story last month, Snell told Arner that she hadn’t spoken to reporters and instead relayed messages from them to her lawyer.
In a statement to the media, Vanasdale said that her client’s “main focus has always been the welfare of her three children” and that the custody case is due to go to trial on November 1st.
Parnell protested against Vanasdale sharing the date for the trial.
“I worry if the process is open to the media, things that kids shouldn’t normally be exposed to … the kids will see the things they shouldn’t,” he said. “I don’t want my kids to be exposed to Laurie and me saying unflattering things about each other.”
Vanasdale replied that the file of the custody case was available to the public and that the date of the trial was listed there.
She repeatedly asked Parnell if he was showing the media any documents regarding a deleted PFA and another one he had tried to take out against Snell. He said he didn’t. Instead, Parnell said he had given information to his campaign.
“Yes, I gave documents to my campaign, but I did not give documents to the press or authorize the release of documents to the press,” he said.
On Friday, Trib Total Media filed a motion to intervene in the case to argue against the sealing of the minutes.
In its filings, the Trib argued that there was a general presumption of openness in the courts that could only be overcome by establishing an important reason.
“General rules that close whole classes of processes to the public must give way to an individual decision,” says the motion, citing a precedent. “In any case, the question must be whether the closure serves an overriding state interest and is closely tailored to serve this interest.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer also submitted a request for intervention on Tuesday.
Arner said he would look into the media requests at a later date but allowed the hearing to remain open.
Paula Reed Ward is the author of the Tribune Review. You can contact Paula by email at pward@triblive.com or on Twitter.
Comments are closed.